I’ll give her the obvious typing error, but she really lives in a fantasy world. It’s not the ideas that make you radical, it’s the disconnect with reality, paying for what you want and the consequences.
At the same time her fans apparently make no connection between the people, the primary source of revenue and government spending, yeah, like a high tax socialist government. 🤑
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
She’s in the same boat with Elizabeth and Bernie! They all think there’s a money tree in the backyard.
LikeLike
Living wages sounds reasonable.
Tuition free college is a logical extension of required K-12 in the modern technical economy. I had it in California up to 1980.
Hospitals are already required to provide emergency care to uninsured.
Who can argue with “common sense” climate policy?
Any of these things are investments in a more prosperous and secure society. Win/win. We will all benefit from it, rich man or poor man.
1. It is not socialism.
2. “We” (the people) CAN afford it.
3. We can’t afford not to.
LikeLike
If we can afford it, how much? It’s just a matter of determining what WE want and how WE will pay for it – not just a tiny percentage of citizens. What tax rate do we need, what new taxes do we need, what new fees do we need? What are the impacts on inflation and standards of living, if any? How much of an investment are YOU willing to make? All this after we decide how to lower our accumulated debt and make SS and Medicare sustainable. Let’s start with a 20% VAT and see how things go.
LikeLike
You’re not going to get it from the lower 50%, that’s for sure. Blood from a turnip. Half those people are net tax recipients. Forget about the VAT.
“Living wages sounds reasonable.”
The alternative is unsustainable. Whether by higher minimum wages or by EIC.
Higher progressive taxes on top fifty percent is the only reasonable alternative. Much higher. Much more progressive. That’s not a tiny percentage. It includes me, although at a much lower tax rate than the upper quintile. (FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate.)
“no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.” That would be about $350,000 in today’s dollars.
OK, even I wouldn’t go that far, but there is easily room for higher taxes on the top forty percent of taxpayers. Yes, including me.
Desperate times, desperate measures, try Johnson’s ten percent income tax surcharge of 1968.
LikeLike
Define living wage. Why is the answer higher taxes always rather than more prudent spending? Why not a VAT with appropriate exclusions for necessary goods lower income need?
LikeLike
Infrastructure, healthcare, education, social services, military, etc., etc., etc.
Do we really want to emulate Mexico?
LikeLike
“… At the same time her fans apparently make no connection between the people, the primary source of revenue and government spending, yeah, like a high tax socialist government. …”
No. She understands. What she has been taught, and firmly believes, is that societal objectives are paramount. That each has a duty to society that is greater than to the individual themselves. And, because of that, the society has a call on your income and possessions. And, especially, the possessions you did not earn but received as a legacy of others (parents?) efforts – at death, all should belong to the state.
‘From each according to ability; to each according to need’. We attribute that to Marx.
But, some find a biblical meaning. “To each according to ability” is in the Gospel of Matthew – see the Parable of Talents. You all work for the master (the state). If you simply bury the talent and dig it up and return it, that behavior is to be condemned. Just think how the parable might have ended if one of the servants had absconded with the principal and the earnings or increased capital from his labor.
All “talent” belongs to the state, and the principal and earnings from the fruits of your labors, all is to be passed back to the state.
Jobs and resources are to be “invested” in the most qualified and entrepreneurial people so that the resulting improvement in productivity benefits everyone.
It isn’t like she is suggesting anyone should not have to work (see most recent post about “guaranteed income”), only that what you earn does not belong to you, for you to participate in society, you must work for society – such as suggested in Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”
If you look really hard, you can also find Paul’s guidance to Thessalonians in the Earned Income credit.
She would say – Amen to that!
LikeLike
This is another example of the failure to teach people of the past collapses of socialist communities. When no one has to work, the work doesn’t get done.
LikeLike